Dataset Information

Use, Safety Assessment, and Implementation of Two Point-of-Care Tests for COVID-19 Testing.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The Abbot ID NOW COVID-19 assay and Quidel Sofia 2 SARS Antigen FIA are point-of-care assays that offer rapid testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral RNA and nucleocapsid protein, respectively. Given the utility of these devices in the field, we investigated the feasibility and safety of using the ID NOW and Sofia assays in the public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and in future public health emergencies.

Methods

A combination of utilization and contamination testing in addition to a review of instrument workflows was conducted.

Results

Utilization testing demonstrated that both tests are intuitive, associated with high user test success (85%) in our study, and could be implemented by staff after minimal training. Contamination tests revealed potential biosafety concerns due to the open design of the ID NOW instrument and the transfer mechanisms with the Sofia. When comparing the workflow of the ID NOW and the Sofia, we found that the ID NOW was more user-friendly and that the transfer technology reduces the chance of contamination.

Conclusions

The ID NOW, Sofia, and other emerging point-of-care tests should be used only after careful consideration of testing workflow, biosafety risk mitigations, and appropriate staff training.

SUBMITTER: Hahn M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8336596 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith Universal Health Coverage and Integrated People-centred Health Care, streamlined health-systems and respectful care are necessary. South Africa has made great strides in prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) but with the great burden of HIV, a minimum of birth and 10-week HIV-PCR testing are required for the estimated 360,000 HIV-exposed infants born annually which presents many challenges including delayed results and loss to follow-up. Point-of-care (POC) HIV testing of infants addresses these challenges well and facilitates initiation of HIV-infected infants rapidly after diagnosis for best clinical outcomes.MethodsObjectives were to determine accuracy, feasibility and acceptability of POC testing compared to standard-of-care (SOC) central-laboratory testing. HIV-exposed infants for birth PCR testing in hospital (n = 323) and follow-up at a primary health care clinic (n = 117) in Durban, South Africa were included. A baseline situational-analysis reviewed registers and phoned mothers of HIV-exposed infants prior to the intervention. An effectiveness-implementation study of the Alere™q HIV-1/2 Detect POC test (heel-prick specimen processed in 50 min) was compared with SOC with questionnaires to mothers and staff. Stata 14 was used for analysis.ResultsAt baseline 2% of birth HIV tests were missed; only 40% of mothers could be contacted; 17% did not receive birth test result; 19% did not have a 10-week test; 39% had not received the 10-week results. There were 5(1.5%) HIV-infected and 318(98.5%) HIV-negative infants detected in hospital with all clinic babies negative. All positive infants commenced ART before discharge. Ultimately POC and SOC had perfect concordance but for 10 SOC tests researchers actively tracked-down results or repeated tests. Turn around times for SOC tests were on average 8-days (IQR 6-10 days) and for POC testing was 0-days. The POC error-rate was 9,6% with all giving a result when repeated. The majority of mothers (92%) preferred POC testing with 7% having no preference. No staff preferred SOC testing with 79% preferring POC and 21% having no preference.ConclusionsPoint-of-care HIV testing for EID is accurate, feasible and acceptable, with benefits of early ART for all positive infants at birth facilities. We recommend that it be considered best practice for EID.Trial registrationISRCTN38911104 registered 9 January 2018 - retrospectively registered.

Project description:The aim of the current study is to perform model calculations on the possible use of SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests as mass tests, using the quality criteria extracted from evidence-based research as an example for the Federal Republic of Germany. In addition to illustrating the problem of false positive test results, these calculations are used to examine their possible influence on the 7-day incidence. For a substantial period of time, this parameter formed the decisive basis for decisions on measures to protect the population in the wake of the COVID pandemic, which were taken by the government. Primarily, model calculations were performed for a base model of 1,000,000 SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests per week using various sensitivities and specificities reported in the literature, followed by sequential testing of the test positives obtained by a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Furthermore, a calculation was performed for an actual maximum model based on self-test contingents by the German Federal Ministry of Health. Assuming a number of 1,000,000 tests per week at a prevalence of 0.5%, a high number of false positive test results, a low positive predictive value, a high negative predictive value, and an increase in the 7-day incidence due to the additional antigen rapid tests of approx. 5/100,000 were obtained. A previous maximum calculation based on contingent numbers for self-tests given by the German Federal Ministry of Health even showed an additional possible influence on the 7-day incidence of 84.6/100,000. The model calculations refer in each case to representative population samples that would have to be drawn if the successive results were comparable which should be given, as far-reaching actions were based on this parameter. The additionally performed SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests increase the 7-day incidence in a clear way depending on the number of tests and clearly show their dependence on the respective number of tests. SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests as well as the SARS-CoV-2-PCR test method should both be used exclusively in the presence of corresponding respiratory symptoms and not in symptom-free persons.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility and acceptability, and additionally to preliminarily evaluate, the effectiveness and safety of an accelerated diagnostic chest pain pathway in rural general practice using point-of-care troponin to identify patients at low risk of acute myocardial infarction, avoiding unnecessary patient transfer to hospital and enabling early discharge home.DesignA prospective observational pilot evaluation.SettingTwelve rural general (family) practices in the Midlands region of New Zealand.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥18 years who presented acutely to rural general practice with suspected ischaemic chest pain for whom the doctor intended transfer to hospital for serial troponin measurement.Outcome measuresThe proportion of patients managed using the low-risk pathway without transfer to hospital and without 30-day major adverse cardiac event (MACE); pathway adherence; rate of 30-day MACE; patient satisfaction with care; and agreement between point-of-care and laboratory measured troponin concentrations.ResultsA total of 180 patients were assessed by the pathway. The pathway classified 111 patients (61.7%) as low-risk and all were managed in rural general practice with no 30-day MACE (0%, 95% CI 0.0% to 3.3%). Adherence to the low-risk pathway was 95.5% (106 out of 111). Of the 56 patients classified as non-low-risk and referred to hospital, 9 (16.1%) had a 30-day MACE. A further 13 non-low-risk patients were not transferred to hospital, with no events. The sensitivity of the pathway for 30-day MACE was 100.0% (95% CI 70.1% to 100%). Of low-risk patients, 94% reported good to excellent satisfaction with care. Good concordance was observed between point-of-care and duplicate laboratory measured troponin concentrations.ConclusionsThe use of an accelerated diagnostic chest pain pathway incorporating point-of-care troponin in a rural general practice setting was feasible and acceptable, with preliminary results suggesting that it may safely and effectively reduce the urgent transfer of low-risk patients to hospital.

Project description:ObjectivesAntigen rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are quick, widely available, and inexpensive. Consequently, RDTs have been established as an alternative and additional diagnostic strategy to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). However, reliable clinical and large-scale performance data specific to a SARS-CoV-2 virus variant of concern (VOC) are limited, especially for the Omicron VOC. The aim of this study was to compare RDT performance among different VOCs.MethodsThis single-centre prospective performance assessment compared RDTs from three manufacturers (NADAL, Panbio, MEDsan) with RT-qPCR including deduced standardized viral load from oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a clinical point-of-care setting from November 2020 to January 2022.ResultsAmong 35 479 RDT/RT-qPCR tandems taken from 26 940 individuals, 164 of the 426 SARS-CoV-2 positive samples tested true positive with an RDT corresponding to an RDT sensitivity of 38.50% (95% CI, 34.00-43.20%), with an overall specificity of 99.67% (95% CI, 99.60-99.72%). RDT sensitivity depended on viral load, with decreasing sensitivity accompanied by descending viral load. VOC-dependent sensitivity assessment showed a sensitivity of 42.86% (95% CI, 32.82-53.52%) for the wild-type SARS-CoV-2, 43.42% (95% CI, 32.86-54.61%) for the Alpha VOC, 37.67% (95% CI, 30.22-45.75%) for the Delta VOC, and 33.67% (95% CI, 25.09-43.49%) for the Omicron VOC. Sensitivity in samples with high viral loads of ≥106 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies per mL was significantly lower in the Omicron VOC (50.00%; 95% CI, 36.12-63.88%) than in the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (79.31%; 95% CI, 61.61-90.15%; p 0.015).DiscussionRDT sensitivity for detection of the Omicron VOC is reduced in individuals infected with a high viral load, which curtails the effectiveness of RDTs. This aspect furthert: limits the use of RDTs, although RDTs are still an irreplaceable diagnostic tool for rapid, economic point-of-care and extensive SARS-CoV-2 screening.

Project description:ImportancePharmacogenomic (PGx) testing provides preemptive pharmacotherapeutic guidance regarding the lack of therapeutic benefit or adverse drug reactions of PGx targeted drugs. Pharmacogenomic information is of particular value among children with complex medical conditions who receive multiple medications and are at higher risk of developing adverse drug reactions.ObjectivesTo assess the implementation outcomes of a PGx testing program comprising both a point-of-care model that examined targeted drugs and a preemptive model informed by whole-genome sequencing that evaluated a broad range of drugs for potential therapy among children in a pediatric tertiary care setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, from January 2017 to September 2020. Pharmacogenomic analyses were performed among 172 children who were categorized into 2 groups: a point-of-care cohort and a preemptive cohort. The point-of-care cohort comprised 57 patients referred to the consultation clinic for planned therapy with PGx targeted drugs and/or for adverse drug reactions, including lack of therapeutic benefit, after the receipt of current or past medications. The preemptive cohort comprised 115 patients who received exploratory whole-genome sequencing-guided PGx testing for their heart conditions from the cardiac genome clinic at the Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research.ExposuresPatients received PGx analysis of whole-genome sequencing data and/or multiplex genotyping of 6 pharmacogenes (CYP2C19, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, CYP3A5, VKORC1, and TPMT) that have established PGx clinical guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresThe number of patients for whom PGx test results warranted deviation from standard dosing regimens.ResultsA total of 172 children (mean [SD] age, 8.5 [5.6] years; 108 boys [62.8%]) were enrolled in the study. In the point-of-care cohort, a median of 2 target genes (range, 1-5 genes) were investigated per individual, with CYP2C19 being the most frequently examined; genotypes in 21 of 57 children (36.8%) were incompatible with standard treatment regimens. As expected from population allelic frequencies, among the 115 children in the whole-genome sequencing-guided preemptive cohort, 92 children (80.0%) were recommended to receive nonstandard treatment regimens for potential drug therapies based on their 6-gene pharmacogenetic profile.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, among both the point-of-care and preemptive cohorts, the multiplex PGx testing program provided dosing recommendations that deviated from standard regimens at an overall rate that was similar to the population frequencies of relevant variants.